Page images
PDF
EPUB

for development in this area to spread out among the population of 600,000 people estimated for 1980.

I sincerely submit that we should go back to the same old theory that a man owns his land from the heavens to the center of the earth, subject to reasonable regulation by the governmental authority. That has proven satisfactory in the States in the Midwest and the East. I have practiced oil and gas law in the State of Texas and am familiar with the development there. Certainly there has been no conflict there.

Economics has taken care of the situation. If the minerals under a piece of land become more valuable than the surface, then certainly the minerals are developed. I do not worry about the minerals not being developed. If the surface is more valuable for development, then of course the surface will be developed.

I submit that a bill should be introduced in the Congress that will give to the owners of the surface the mineral thereunder, and it should not be a piece of special legislation, it should cover and encompass the entire United States or the entire jurisdiction of Congress. And by doing that we put the land back where it was originally intended to be.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Do you think that should be a free gift by the Government to any person holding surface rights acquired with mineral rights reserved to the Federal Government?

Mr. HOLMES. I think it should be, yes, because prior to this act, with a few exceptions, the Federal Land Act of 1862 did under some circumstances allow the reservation of minerals. I think that could be controlled by the Department of the Interior. In other words, the United States should not issue a patent to land, other than a mining patent, to land which they, the Government, thinks has mineral possibilities. Leave that up to the discretion of the Department of the Interior whether or not certain lands should be released to what we now call the surface holders, or for homesteading or exchange, or for the various purposes that individuals acquire Federal land for.

Of course, you know that better than 80 percent of the State of Arizona is governmental-owned land. So we have a very small area in which to develop.

Everybody recognizes that the entire problem, probably, right here is our explosive population, which is true throughout the United States. We would not have this problem today if Tucson had stayed at 22,000 the way it was back in 1910.

There has to be some common meeting ground. We are certainly not against the mining interests. And when I say "mining interests" I mean the legitimate mining interests. But we are against such things as have happened in the surrounding area and particularly Casas Adobes Estates where land values have decreased. It is hard to get mortgages. Even the Federal Government on their mortgage program is hesitant to give mortgages in the area. They put it up for that purpose, and then it is destroyed by another act of Congress, and I refer to the act of 1916.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Holmes, may I ask, do you represent the Signature Construction Co.?

Mr. HOLMES. I do not represent the Signature Construction Co.

[graphic]

Mr. EDMONDSON. Do you have their authority to make this letter a part of the record?

Mr. HOLMES. I do have their authority to make it so.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Do you represent Mr. Glenn Allen?

Mr. HOLMES. I do not represent Mr. Glenn Allen.

Mr. EDMONDSON. But this copy was sent to you by Mr. Allen? Mr. HOLMES. No. Mr. Dvordza sent that copy to me as attorney for Casas Adobes Estates, wanting to make me and Casas Adobes Estates and the residents out there aware of his activities.

Mr. EDMONDSON. I think, under the circumstances, if you have no authority on behalf of the Signature Construction Co. to make this a part of the record

Mr. HOLMES. I do have that authority.

Mr. EDMONDSON. We will be willing to accept the letter to the Signature Construction Co. and make it a part of the record, but in the absence of some proof of authenticity as to the origin of this letter, I think there would be a question in our minds as to making this second letter a part of our record.

Mr. HOLMES. Could it be made a part of the file? It came to me in the U.S. mails.

Mr. EDMONDSON. But you have no way of knowing actually whether Mr. Dvordza sent this letter to you, or whether someone sent it to you and represented it to be from Mr. Dvordza.

Mr. HOLMES. I have absolutely no way of knowing that, no.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Under those circumstances, I think, because of the content of this second letter, it would probably be better to make it a part of the file, and the first letter will be made a part of the record, the letter to the Signature Construction Co., which has authorized you to offer it for the record. That will be made a part of the record, but the longer letter, the one on which there might be some serious doubt of the origin

Mr. HOLMES. I could not avow to that.

Mr. EDMONDSON. We will make that a part of the file.

If there is no objection, that will be the order of the committee. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(The Signature Construction Co. letter follows:)

SIGNATURE CONSTRUCTION CO.,
Tucson, Ariz.

TUCSON, ARIZ., November 30, 1960.

DEAR SIRS: Mining claims have been staked on some of the lands in the area generally referred to as the Casas Adobes, just north of the city of Tucson. This has been done according to the provisions of the Taylor Grazing Act and, under these same provisions, a mining operation may be legally established for the purpose of developing any mineral resources occuring in the above-mentioned claims. I have recently acquired mineral leases from the original staker, Mr. Glenn Allen, of Tucson, and within the agreement of these leases, I may proceed with such development as may be allowed by the provisions and limitations of the law. It is my intention to do so. I am approaching the final stages of organization necessary prior to the actual inauguration of a mining operation. Having been informed that you have certain commercial interests in the area, I have been advised to notify you of our intention. As miners, in the legal pursuit of our normal business, and within the designated provisions of the Taylor Grazing Act, we are responsible to the surface owner only for damage

1 Locations of mineral claims: T. 12 S., R. 13 E.; secs. 1, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 23, 27. and 34; T. 13 S., R. 13 E.; secs. 3, and 4. In some of these sections the entire surface area is not affected. Exact locations are of public record.

to such surfaces or installations as may be classified as "agricultural." Having been advised of this fact, you will be better able to plan your own activities in the area. Contrary to some expressed opinion, I feel that our interests will not conflict so sharply as to cause any lack of cooperation between us.

Sincerely yours,

PAUL DVORDZA.

Mr. HOLMES. I think I have said about all I have to say in such a short time. I could expound on this for hours, of course, if necessary. I think the reservation that I read in this title report should be sufficient to show you what the situation is. I do not think any of you members of the subcommittee would want to purchase a home or a piece of land that had such a restriction and reservation on it. That is when it brings it home to you, even though your lawyer says, "Look, this is what they can do."

We were not scared about it before. We did not run into the area of conflict. We did not have somebody come in and, maybe for ulterior purposes, file a bunch of claims over residential properties. We never knew legitimate miners to do so. However, we are faced with it now.

I think there will be more. There are certain opportunists that come in and take advantage of any situation. That is what is happening to us in that area, and we believe it will continue to happen.

Mr. EDMONDSON. You have given a very helpful overall picture of what this problem is in terms of 20 years from now. I think for that the committee is very grateful, and I am sure the community has some real reason to appreciate your appearance here.

Are there questions?

Mr. CHENOWETH. Were you the attorney for the group which developed this area?

Mr. HOLMES. Yes, sir; the Casas Adobes Estate Corp., the developer of the Casas Adobes area.

Mr. CHENOWETH. You were the attorney at the time they decided to develop it?

Mr. HOLMES. No. I was not the attorney at the time they decided to develop it. I came into the picture later on.

Mr. CHENOWETH. Who advised them concerning the surface and mineral rights?

Mr. HOLMES. I am not certain who did. I believe probably Judge Fickett.

I would like to add that none of us attorneys prior to the time of this development in this area paid any attention to mineral reservations in the Homestead Grazing Act of 1916 because the mining interests never encroached upon us. It was just something, in fact, our title report and our title policy would say, "subject to patent reservation, U.S. patent reservation," and that is about all there would be in it. The title companies would not even give you a report on what the patent reservation was. So we paid no attention to it whatsoever.

Mr. CHENOWETH. But as an attorney advising a client on the purchase of land, you would call attention to that reservation?

Mr. HOLMES. I did not, though, in those days. I will now, I assure you, and the title companies have, as I read from the title report right there. That is why it is becoming more important.

Mr. CHENOWETH. In other words, they were not getting the fee title but only title to the surface rights?

[graphic]

Mr. HOLMES. And not all of the surface. For mining purposes, ditches, flumes, and so forth.

Mr. CHENOWETH. They had the right to develop the land subject to that reservation.

Mr. HOLMES. Or the miners could use it for development of other lands.

Mr. CHENOWETH. I think they would still have to compensate for certain damages.

Mr. HOLMES. Principally to crops and maybe a fence or two.

Mr. CHENOWETH. I am reluctant to disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court, but I think myself they misinterpreted the intent of Congress. Mr. HOLMES. I fully agree, and wish I could get a reversal of the decision.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Thank

Mr. Richard Darling. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD S. DARLING, JRW CONSTRUCTION & INVESTMENTS, INC., SANTA RITA HOTEL, TUCSON, ARIZ.

Mr. DARLING. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Richard S. Darling. I am associated with JRW Construction & Investments, Inc., and am affiliated with a group of Tucson and Colorado businessmen who are the joint owners of the surface rights of approximately 445 acres of raw unsubdivided land situated in Twin Buttes, Ariz., an area which is heavily claimed for its mineral rights.

Let me point this out to you. It is this area I have my pointer right on, section 31, township 17 south, range 15 east.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Thank you.

Mr. UDALL. For the information of the committee, this is right in between and near to the big open pit mining developments you will see later today.

My purpose today is not to direct relationship to our land, for we own a very small portion of the claimed area, but rather it is my hope that by using our land as an example I will be able to present some of the problems which face us and/or any other landowner who is the deeded holder of the surface rights to land in this area.

I might point out it was our intention at that time to subdivide and make homesites in this area.

Our acreage was purchased for investment. Due to the adverse publicity caused as the result of the mining claim problem in the Casas Adobes area, we have been unable to locate a single prospective buyer. We have been able to locate buyers, but as soon as the mining claims come up, they want out.

Naturally we have been very unhappy with this situation since we operate under the profit motive. For us to purchase the mining claims on our land would be financially impossible; for the owners of the claims to relinquish their claims free and clear to us would undoubtedly take an act of Congress.

We have heard of the plan that the Tucson Council of the Arizona Small Mine Association has proposed. In a certain designated area, ail the mining claims would be relinquished by the holders and revert back to the deeded property owners. However, what if a deeded

property owner is also in the mining business? In this light then what has been accomplished by this legislation? What of the landowner outside the designated area-should he go unprotected? Surely some provision should be made to protect his surface interest if his land is designated as a potential urban area.

We wonder if the economic contribution rendered by building homes, shopping centers, industry, schools, and recreation parks is not greater in the long run than the contribution that would be attributed to the mining industry in areas designated as urban.

The population growth in the Tucson urban area in the past 10 years has been unprecedented. In 1950 the urban population was 122,764. In 1960 the urban population more than doubled to 252,650. The population projection for the urban area of Tucson in 1975 is 460,000.

Now this [indicating map] is Tucson in 1950, this black area. This is Tucson in 1960, and you can see how much it has grown.

With such rapid growth in the past 10 years and the projected growth for the future, it should be clear that a great deal of land will be required to satisfy the needs of Tucson's future residents. At the present time, a multi-million-dollar retirement community is contemplated in the area known as the Caona Land Grant. This area is approximately 10 minutes from the land used as an example in this discussion.

I will point that out. This [indicating] is the Caona Land Grant. The area they have in mind is 3,000 acres in the northern part. This is a new section. The Arizona Daily Star says the construction. contract alone is exceeding $12 million. It is a retirement city for senior citizens. And this area will have five retirement neighborhoods, each in a different bracket, to fill the needs of whoever can afford it for the bracket they are in.

I say this is contemplated, not a reality yet. It is contemplated. They have taken a 1-year option. So it still has not materialized, it is still contemplated.

It is our firm belief that where mining claims are a direct threat to the future growth of the urban area, legislation should be enactedwhether it be on a State, local, or national level-to protect and insure the rights of the deeded owners to the area involved.

I might add that it is not our intention that the mining people should be left without anything and the property in there should be unprotected, because, after all, when an industry contributes $415 million annually to the State's income, which is second only to the manufacturing industry, which contributes $700 million, it is an important industry.

My only thought, and that of the group, is we wonder if the urban area of Tucson someday may not close the entire area.

I can show on this particular population projection here, the population projection for the year 2000-I realize that is a long way off and perhaps mining claims might be worked out by then-for Tucson is 1,200,000, low; 1,600,000 high.

Mr. CHENOWETH. What is your solution to the problem?

Mr. DARLING. Well, if the mineral rights below the area are more important for the present time, perhaps some arrangement can be made between the mining company and the owners to purchase the

« PreviousContinue »